SB 3.5.27: Thereafter, influenced by the interactions of eternal time, the supreme sum total of matter called the mahat-tattva became manifested, and in this mahat-tattva the unalloyed goodness, the Supreme Lord, sowed the seeds of universal manifestation out of His own body.
SB 3.5.28: Thereafter the mahat-tattva differentiated itself into many different forms as the reservoir of the would-be entities. The mahat-tattva is chiefly in the mode of ignorance, and it generates the false ego. It is a plenary expansion of the Personality of Godhead, with full consciousness of creative principles and time for fructification."
'via Blog this'
Sanders Say:
There is an expression which I have learned by reading the Bhagavad Gita As It Is by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, many years ago (which 1st came into my hands at Port Authority, NYC when I was around 16 years old on my way to a reunion of an American Youth Hostels bicycle trip to Canada lead by Floyd (that was his first name... no not Pink Floyd...sheesh)..
The expression is chewing what has already been chewed. The premise of reincarnation is elucidated and expounded upon in this book. The past, present and future as explained as karmic reactions explains how so much of what goes in today's world is so mundane, mainly because we have been there and done that many times before.
Chewing what has already been chewed.
Things which only provide fast temporary relief are of this nature because they are derived from the "sum total of matter called the mahat-tattva" elsewhere in The Bhagavad Gita, these material hankerings we all have is explained as Krsna's (just figure on using G-d to avoid any "your religion-my religion type of argumentation) inferior energy which the swami often refers to using the sanskrit term, Krnsa's powerful Yoga-Maya, or just Maya for short.
One of my favorite verses I recall from the Swami's book is an example used explaining how Krnsa may enter this world (obviously if he so chooses- yet this is disputed by some who insist that G-d is and must be incorporeal) and not become entrapped by this inferior "illusory" energy. The analogy used is perfect!
Om-Tat-Sat:
The spider weaves a web to entangle its potential sources of food, yet the spider itself does not become entangled in its own web.
In my own humble opinion, one of the principles stated by Maimonides in his 13 principles; that G-d is incorporeal and does not have a body (of any sort, in the past present or future) is one of these fundamental 13 principles of faith which is included in the daily prayer. The prayer says that anyone who does not believe these principle's is an apikoros (non believer).
Therefore, I (simply because I have a belief) that if G-d wanted to take on any sort of form... well he most certainly can) by this definition become labeled as apikoros (and I most certainly am a complete believer in G-d) It is my "personal belief" that this particular principle is included in the list of 13 to teach us something far more subtle. However if one finds themselves to actually be born into a religion which simply does not allow sincere inquiry and questioning on some of the more esoteric and complex beliefs then it is certainly understandable for one to look outside of such a restrictive environment.
The particulars regarding myself (like so many other things in my life) are of course not the usual. That is, I was not given a specific "tradition" of learning as part of my early childhood (or even the usual pre- bar mitzvah track) yet I was always (yes always) a very spiritual inquisitive person.
According to one of the 13 principle's of Maimonides, G-d is incorporeal. According to the Bhagavad Gita... the explanation I am expounding upon here, is G-d is omnipotent (He can do anything) and omnipresent (he can be anywhere... at the same time... ?) ...
Rather than take on the Rabbis and lose my share in the world to come I would rather simply state that it only makes sense that if G-d wanted to "be corporal" that he could be corporeal. Yet now taking on this particular argument I do see the conundrum.
How could "one" be corporeal and remain omni-pressent?
I would rather ask that question remain part of a very fine religion, then to be drummed out the religion for thinking about something too deeply.
There is a bigger issue here, and that should be readily obvious to those who know my story. That being why I am delving into all this Bhagavad Gita stuff, instead of sticking with the strictly Jewish sources?
The answer to that question is huge, and would take me quite a bit of time and words to explain. The simple "readers digest" answer however is this:
I have always been interested in the very deep, and highly esoteric mysteries of creation. I have never danced around questions or been satisfied with simple answers or highly dogmatic concepts. Does that mean that I am unfit for any religion, not in my opinion, far from it. I believe that I am one of these people who needs the longer and more complex explanation. Often things as important as religion are treated on a very simplistic level. Such a level, has never been nor never will be the starting point for me.
Time is short and there is little time to dance around valid questions.
Stephen C. Sanders
October, 14, 2012- 3:48 am
I am exhausted!
No comments:
Post a Comment